Report: few businesses to adopt Windows 7 in 2010

Even in its beta form, Windows 7 seems to be generating considerably more positive feedback than Windows Vista. However, a survey quoted by InformationWeek suggests the hype machine hasn’t done much to woo enterprise users.

Diamond Research quizzed over 1,100 “IT professionals” as part of the survey, and it concluded that only 17% of businesses plan to adopt Windows 7 within a year of its release. 42% will make the jump within one or two years, while the rest will wait two years or more. Now, businesses typically have longer and more cautious upgrade cycles than other regular users. However, InformationWeek points out that the figure is still surprising, because “almost no large companies migrated to Vista and as a result most have been using XP much longer than planned.”

Why aren’t more businesses planning to ditch the nearly eight-year-old operating system for a fresher version of Windows? The Diamond Research survey names two major factors: the economic climate, which “almost half” of participants cite as a reason for delayed adoption, and application compatibility, which worries 88% of respondents. Paradoxically, though, 50% also said they’ve “considered switching to a non-Windows OS to avoid Vista or Windows 7.”

Comments closed
    • thecoldanddarkone
    • 13 years ago

    I’m going to disagree with that, more business functionality is built into windows 7 than xp. The biggest difference is that because xp was a standard for so long businesses created tools to fill in the gaps that xp had.

    • Pax-UX
    • 13 years ago

    I’m say no productive functionality has been added that makes the OS better for business people. If you don’t have access to the Internets and lock down the PC access USB, etc security isn’t an issue.

    • yogibbear
    • 13 years ago

    Enlighten me?

    Also just to add, I just noticed that our new IT dude is now using Vista! (NB: not Science!)… *shock horror*

    • indeego
    • 13 years ago

    §[<http://indeego.com/vistanotsoaccurate.png<]§ Love how Vista organizes my network drives for meg{<.<}g

    • MadMax
    • 13 years ago

    Apache is an HTTP server, not an OS. Most though, prefer to deploy it on Linux/UNIX systems.

    • jstern
    • 13 years ago

    What I meant was that, thinking of logically, it would make sense that Windows would be technically the best protected, since it is the biggest target, forcing Microsoft to have to work harder on security than lets say Apple. In other words, lets say we took Vista and OSx to a new an isolated world of humans. Starting from scratch, those new humans will have better luck exploiting OSX than Vista. I’m not saying it’s a fact, just that logically to me that makes sense.

    • BabelHuber
    • 13 years ago

    The big companies I know have all 32Bit XP clients. That’s enough for doing some Word, Excel and E-Mailing.

    The Business Software like SAP and Oracle runs on servers anyways (mostly on Linux/ Unix-systems in my experience).

    The users connect to these servers via a Windows GUI or the Browser itself. No data processing is running on the clients here (2GB on the client is enough in most cases).

    This makes switching to Vista or Windows 7 a moot point. The client can already do everything it should, it’s a mere tool anyways.

    Money is better spent on other things (like producing some stuff one can actually sell), so the client software is kept as long as possible.

    • Homerr
    • 13 years ago

    I’m our company’s IT guy (at an architecture firm) and I think the 64-bit issue is a big one, but right now we’re just worried about making it to the end of the year. Asking me now about adopting Windows 7 vs. 6 months from now – there may be a different answer when we’re not in all-out survival mode.

    • zima
    • 13 years ago

    MS didn’t have the balls to piss few people, Intel has the balls to release 32-bit only CPUs RIGHT NOW (well, two months ago or so…though some 32-bit only Intel CPUs will be released also in Autumn)

    • no51
    • 13 years ago

    Akin to saying your house is okay except for the occasional robbery and you’re not going to move because you like the neighborhood.

    • burntham77
    • 13 years ago

    I agree. I was hoping Vista would be the last MS OS with a 32-bit version. Going full 64-bit would eliminate certain stability issues, and would allow (or force) developers to focus on 64-bit.

    Maybe next time?

    • YeuEmMaiMai
    • 13 years ago

    yeah I guess that’s why my AV program and popup blocker go nuts even on a log ot letgit sites that get infected……..

    and as to the reason, that shouldn’t bee too hard to guess……….down turn in the economy perhaps?

    • Pax-UX
    • 13 years ago

    You do realize? just because something is old doesn’t mean it is incapable of doing 100% of what a company requires from an OS. XP does everything any company would require, the only reason to upgrade is security problems! So why buy any other OS period!

    • Chrispy_
    • 13 years ago

    The problem is not to do with XP/Vista/7 uptake, it’s a 32-bit/64-bit issue.

    Running mixed environments is extra work, and some software just isn’t 64-bit ready yet. I’m disappointed that Windows7 won’t be 64-bit only – the software industry needs a kick up the backside like that to dump legacy programs before we can all move on.

    I, for one, DO run a mixed environment over about 500 machines, and the 64-bit Vista/XP machines still give us the most headaches with what can be considered fairly mundane software.

    • yogibbear
    • 13 years ago

    I too have slight irks with using XP at work… but whatever… it works i guess…(i have vista 64-bit at home) i prod IT about it and they whinge back at me about Vista sucking and that Windows 7 will be the holy grail. I then question their IT degree and whether or not they want to be lectured by a chemical engineer as to why Vista and Windows 7 are not that different, but I don’t want my email to be cut off or my remote access disconnected so tend to quietly get disgruntled about IT being stupid.

    • d0g_p00p
    • 13 years ago

    Strange. My only issue with Windows 7 (and Server 2008) is the migration and deployment issue. I had a rough enough time with Office 2007 SP 1 and that was a *minor* upgrade compared to the deployment of W7.

    • Usacomp2k3
    • 13 years ago

    I wish I had Vista on my work laptop (typing on it now). I’m really tired of having to take a step backwards in usability.

    • Usacomp2k3
    • 13 years ago

    Who said that it’s linear?

    • Convert
    • 13 years ago

    Hmm, depending on how good the RTM is I am considering switching all client systems over to Windows 7 in 2010. We skipped Vista so this would work out nicely.

    I kind of doubt we will have too many app compatibility issues that plagued Vista since they are ironed out now.

    • Krogoth
    • 13 years ago

    Businesses are completely different animals than the mainstream market. They only upgrade based on “need” and if the product in question has “proven” itself to be useful. This also holds true for hardware solutions.

    The next major cycle comes around a.k.a hardware/software is dying/obsolete and warranty is out of date. Businesses will adopt whatever platform at the time best suits their needs.

    MS, Apple and OSS community are all at the mercy of this.

    • flip-mode
    • 13 years ago

    If Autodesk releases a Mac version an allows it to share the same network license file as a Windows client then my firm will be extremely, extremely interested. That’s good to hear.

    • moshpit
    • 13 years ago

    Security through obscurity is no security at all.

    • indeego
    • 13 years ago

    What about apacheg{

    • barleyguy
    • 13 years ago

    That’s really an overused argument. Linux is on about 70% of the web servers on the Internet, and still has less security issues in that use case than Windows. OSX is on ~10% of desktops, and has far less than 10% of the security issues. As far as self replicating viruses, it’s somewhere around 0%.

    • ltcommander.data
    • 13 years ago

    Well it might not be such an issue for long. Autodesk is now polling users to determine the interest and the features for a Mac OS X version of AutoCAD.

    §[<http://autodesk.blogs.com/between_the_lines/2009/04/i-need-your-input-on-autocad-for-the-apple-mac-os-x.html<]§ Adobe Creative Suite is of course available for Mac, while Microsoft seems to have finally figured out how to get a more fully featured Outlook client for Mac with Exchange Web Services although it's still in beta.

    • Hance
    • 13 years ago

    I see this as more of a thumbs up for windows XP that a shot at windows 7 myself. If windows xp is working and working well why upgrade? For the apps that most business users run xp is probably fine for a long time to come.

    • jstern
    • 13 years ago

    It might just be, since the reason why OSX and Linux have less security problems is because they are less used.

    • cygnus1
    • 13 years ago

    Agreed. People see open office and other alternatives and think they are replacements for MS Office because they can read and write the same files. And sure for simple things that’s a true statement. But everywhere I go I see tons of custom stuff added to Excel or Access or whatever. You can’t easily replicate that sort of automation and business logic with any other package or OS.

    • indeego
    • 13 years ago

    /[http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=4146<]§ Gotta say, even though I administrate a linux box or two, and the thousands of packages I have to keep track of, there is a point there. One look at Secunia's historical advisories (which I track daily) and you'll see a patterng{<:<}g §[<http://secunia.com/advisories/historic/<]§ OOB Vista is secure. But it's easy to screw over any of these OS's if you don't know what you are doingg{...}g

    • flip-mode
    • 13 years ago

    Of course there are, but MS Office alone is a “necessity” for a huge percentage. Hell, the number of people that just can’t survive without MS Outlook is grotesque. And while graphics and design houses like to be cutting edge and would therefore probably be good candidates for trying an alternative OS (a.k.a. Linux), they’re not going there without Adobe and Autodesk. At least, those are my thoughts.

    • bittermann
    • 13 years ago

    Computers get old and die. They will be replaced with Windows 7 not XP, so corporations will buy it. XP was a good operating system but it’s time is fading. Windows 7 is more up to date and has better security. It’s called progress…

    • WaltC
    • 13 years ago
    • digitalwanderer
    • 13 years ago

    I didn’t want you to think you didn’t have any friends in this thread. 😛 😉

    • WaltC
    • 13 years ago

    Always nice to hear from you, DIG…:)

    • DrDillyBar
    • 13 years ago

    I’ve worked for 2 businesses that have deployed Vista Enterprise already. I’m sure Win7 on the client side will just be treated like Vista SP2 deployments and will ramp accordingly as the cycle continues.

    • StashTheVampede
    • 13 years ago

    This is the case with my supported app: the client is fine on Vista, but the DB backend is using some third party accelerator that runs as a service.

    Technically, it “runs” on Vista, but the service doesn’t work and it’s a manual process to turn toggle this DB caching. Solutions have to be turn key and their lack of Vista support makes Hyper-V a necessity.

    • digitalwanderer
    • 13 years ago

    Aw, I read your post Walt. Heck, I stalk you and read ALL of your posts…

    😉

    • barleyguy
    • 13 years ago

    That can be true for user applications. If they don’t run well, best practices probably weren’t followed. For server applications and security applications, Vista is a whole new beast. It won’t allow writing to certain folders without admin rights, and UAE can cause an irritating number of prompts when running server or security apps that weren’t designed for Vista.

    Generally this is a good thing, because the Vista security model is better than XP et al. But it does make it way more than just a simple tweak to get those types of applications working on Vista.

    • UberGerbil
    • 13 years ago

    This has little or nothing to do with Vista. Windows XP was not widely adopted by businesses in its first year either. Any competent IT department has an evaluation process where they vet the new OS against their portfolio of applications; this can take 6 to 18 months. A lot of shops have critical application software that was either developed in-house or is produced by small, niche vendors, and those often have problems with new OS editions (and are slow to be updated). On top of that, many IT shops refuse to support multiple client OSes, or to add Yet Another client to the ones they already support. This means that even when they’ve validated and approved the OS, they won’t allow it to be adopted in drips and drabs. Whenever they decide to switch over to the new OS, it will be a large-scale migration and it won’t happen right away — especially with capital budgets being what they are in many businesses.

    In fact, you typically roll out a new OS in conjunction with new client hardware — which is usually on a four year depreciation schedule. A lot of companies bought new hardware in 1999 as part of the Y2K thing, and have been on four year schedules since — 2003, 2007, and the next one in 2011.

    • indeego
    • 13 years ago

    windows key, type a word, and find it anywhere on your corp lan/mailbox/http within milliseconds. Vista & Server 2008 can do this OOB, XP cannot [without some struggle].

    Vista: 60 second process to determine bottlenecks in system. Built in. XP doesn’t have this.

    Vista: Protected mode for IE. Pretty much renders the web safe under a user account, even given most 0-days. There still hasn’t been a mass worm exploitable to Vista since its release.

    That alone is probably worth $$$ to most companiesg{<.<}g But yeah, in my tests, which are still ongoing, the biggest hassles are user migrations, software compatibility with UAC, and legacy software. Drivers/operation are gold now.

    • indeego
    • 13 years ago

    There are businesses out there that don’t need any of those three software packages, amazingly enough, or can thin client/VM what they need outg{<.<}g

    • flip-mode
    • 13 years ago

    Alternative OSes that don’t run MS Office, Don’t run Adobe CS, and don’t run Autodesk software are not viable alternatives. This is not their fault though, it is either chickent and egg, or MS money keeping progress from happening.

    • WaltC
    • 13 years ago

    That’s not unusual at all, really. Many businesses today are still running DOS POS setups and many other DOS systems, too. (My local Kroger’s grocery store still uses a DOS-based POS system, for instance.)

    Really, the only thing new here is the ignorance and FUD spread about Vista, imo. This is the real paradox: Win7 is basically Vista all over again, but the same people who moaned the loudest about Vista are orgiastic over Win7…;) That amount of ignorance is a fairly recent phenomenon, really. Lots of people didn’t like WinXP when it shipped, either, and lots of businesses were very slow to adopt it. What’s different? The FUD. It’s a lot more illogical and emotional than it used to be…;)

    • flip-mode
    • 13 years ago

    Win 7 /is/ a service pack. But I still think you’re right.

    • PeterD
    • 13 years ago

    Maybe it’s time we should consider the possible that W Xp might become kind of a “classic”, something which will never go away.
    Of course, in the end, everything goes away. But for XP that “end” might not be as quick as we are used to when it’s about an OS.

    • WaltC
    • 13 years ago

    I’m sure this is true for many custom applications. I’ve never liked the policy, though, of charging an arm and a leg for a custom application and then refusing to make the minor tweaks necessary to support a newer OS version. If it takes more than minor tweaks, that’s usually because the application developer ignored the Windows programming guides when writing and compiling his application–which makes the high prices routinely charged for such applications all the more horrendous,imo.

    • WaltC
    • 13 years ago

    /[

    • WaltC
    • 13 years ago

    Aside from the fact that you obviously missed my point–I don’t recall ever calling someone on the carpet for not reading my posts…;) Usually, if I ever do that, it’s because they pretend to read my posts but actually don’t.

    My point was that it would only be “paradoxical” if 50% actually switched to an incompatible OS, since the compatibility problems in doing that would dwarf a simple move from XP to Vista, or from XP to Win7. “Considering a switch” has no relation to actually making such a switch. I don’t think “considering a switch” is a paradox in light of the publicity Vista has received on the Internet from many quarters. However, an examination of the facts about Vista would indicate that after “considering a switch” most would wisely conclude that it would be economic folly to actually make such a switch.

    • StashTheVampede
    • 13 years ago

    Already using that for a client of mine. Their application(s) are STAUNCH with the non-vista support, so I must keep something from the last codebase around in order to keep their apps running.

    Hyper-V works great for this ONE application. At this point, I don’t care if that application gets an upgrade, it can live in VM forever.

    • ChangWang
    • 13 years ago

    Since the 7 release is so close, we are already testing against the beta and plan to skip Vista all together

    • leor
    • 13 years ago

    not really, because never has there been an OS as badly shunned as Vista in the workplace. With the amount of time windows XP ruled the roost, we’re in kind of an odd situation where it’s likely lots of businesses will be running on a 10 year old OS for a majority of their functions.

    That’s what MS gets for releasing a turd . . .

    • AMDisDEC
    • 13 years ago

    It’s the same ole American business game.
    Managers can’t find real compelling features and functions to add real value to their products, so they rely on hype and pricing tricks (Max. tasks run), to give the illusion of value. Consequently, after spending billions on development, 100s of millions on fake marketing, we still see a mediocre product like Vista crash and burn and have no real reason to consider why.
    Corporations will not purchase Windows 7 simply because they don’t need to. Their is no compelling reason for them to do so, and that’s the fault of Microsoft marketing and engineering to address compelling needs of their primary customer base.
    Microsoft is in entropy. If it weren’t for system bundling (HP, IBM, ect.) , they’d be SOL.

    • bittermann
    • 13 years ago

    We are considering using Windows Server 2008 and a clustered network system running XP virtual machines on locked down clients (pc’s) at work.That way if employee’s screw up (and they will) we just reload the vm client to original state. Since we run fiber internally bandwidth will not be a bottleneck for customer service or tech support. Start up costs may be an issue but it should extend our current workstation hardware for a couple years…

    • tanker27
    • 13 years ago

    Which is true. A lot of companies have “in house” written apps that just do not translate well and would take huge amounts of time/money in re-coding. So while a business may say, “we are exploring non-windows OSes”, that may be true. But, more often than not, any plan to move off of Windows are ultimately scraped.

    I know this. This same scenario happened here in my Fortune 500 company.

    • barleyguy
    • 13 years ago

    /[

    • Meadows
    • 13 years ago

    For someone who pokes others for not reading his novel-sized comments, you sure did miss the point of what Cyril was telling. 88% of those asked were worried about compatibility problems, yet 50% of those asked would consider another OS altogether. How’s that for compatibility problems? Sounds like a paradox.

    • Sanctusx2
    • 13 years ago

    I would think this is the typical trend? It took several years before people started using XP over 2k, and a similar amount of time going from ’95’98 to 2k. I wouldn’t expect businesses to start purchasing Windows 7 on PCs until at least a service pack or two–too risky and untested.

    Of course us techy and home users will be ALL over it. 😉

    • barleyguy
    • 13 years ago

    No offense intended, but this article falls in the “DUH!” category. History shows us that businesses rarely are early adopters of operating systems.

    Nuf said.

    • WaltC
    • 13 years ago

    /[

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This

Share this post with your friends!